Scott Gibson and Matthew Kim, in their conclusion to Homiletics and Hermeneutics: Four Views on Preaching Today, correctly observe: “We note that each author reads the text with a theological framework and makes a theological commitment in his exegesis and preaching” (p. 157).
Hermeneutics does not start with a theological framework. Hermeneutics starts with the text, which leads to a theological framework. Hermeneutics starts with the author’s original intent, which is discovered through the historical/grammatical method of interpretation.
Then they raise this question: “One of the questions we want to raise with the authors and our readers is this: Is there a pure hermeneutical form that can take the text at face value without imposing one’s theological framework? Is this even possible?” (p. 158). The answer is definitely yes! It is the hermeneutic that each of the four contributors starts with which is the historical/grammatical method.
Gibson and Kim highlight the weaknesses in each of the contributors view of hermeneutics:
Chapell: One issue for consideration concerns Chapell’s recommendation that the preacher asks of every text, “What does this text reflect of human nature that requires redemption?” This question may seem individualistic, leaving out the larger listening community, possibly the immediate biblical context, and the situation of the biblical author and world. One wonders if preachers really need to “disclose where every text stands in relation to Christ’s ministry.” This statement raises the question of the purpose of Scripture. Certainly, understanding the relation of a biblical text to Christ’s ministry is one way to interpret Scripture, but is it the only or primary way? Additionally, is redemption the point, purpose, and goal of every text?
Gibson and Kim add, “In Christ-centered preaching, there is the risk that all sermons may sound the same and do not account for the biblical author’s intentions” (p.162).
Kuruvilla: Do all texts provide a “christiconic” image or characteristic of Christ so that that must be read into the text?
Langley: The lack of specificity of what God-centered preaching means (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?) raises the question about the role of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics for preaching (p. 160).
Wilson: One might judge that the binary of law-trouble and gospel-grace is too rigid to allow Scripture to speak for itself, similar to the limitations of the other hermeneutical approaches in this book (p.161).
Gibson and Kim identify the “limitations” of each of the authors, which is placing an additional grid of hermeneutics on top of the authorial intent. However, Scott and Kim do not provide the solution to the problem or the limitation they identified. The solution is the historical/grammatical method of interpretation.